On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:34:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:16:28 +0200 Joerg Jaspert wrote:
I *used* to think that those disclaimers are implicit in most cases.
But then, I was harshly accused of not making it clear enough that
I am neither a lawyer, nor a Debian
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:34:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
As a consequence I began adding the disclaimers to my messages, in
order to explicitly remind readers about the above facts.
Now, you say that those disclaimers are a waste of time...
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The real issue is not that you [Francesco Poli] were posting without
disclaimers.
The issue that led to those disclaimers was *exactly* that some
thought Francesco should make it clear he is not speaking officially.
When someone posts to debian-legal
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your [Steve Langasek's] complaint, on the other hand, is just as valid
or invalid whether Francesco is a Debian developer or not. However,
the description of the list says:
debian-legal mailing list
Copyright, licensing and patent issues
Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[debian-legal] does not restrict itself to dispensing the
decisions of the ftp-masters.
Perhaps that should be fixed then.
What would your proposed fix entail? Surely not divorcing the
ftp-masters from
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 08:34:31PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The real issue is not that you [Francesco Poli] were posting without
disclaimers.
The issue that led to those disclaimers was *exactly* that some
thought Francesco should make it clear he
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 00:13:06 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
The real issue is not that you were posting without disclaimers. The real
issue is that you post to debian-legal with *content* that is inappropriate
*because* you are not a lawyer or a Debian developer.
When someone posts to
* Francesco Poli
| On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:54:09 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
|
| [...]
| Actually, how are debian-keyring and debian-archive-keyring free-software,
| anyway? Do I get source code for the all GPG keys they contain?
|
| The most widely accepted definition of source code is
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:19:49 +0200 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Francesco Poli
[...]
| If you modify a GPG public key, you obtain something that no longer
| corresponds to the original private key (obviously).
No, the most common modification done to a GPG public key is adding a
signature to
On 11424 March 1977, Francesco Poli wrote:
Important disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
Those are *totally* and absolutely unimportant and a waste to write.
Could people please stop always writing them, its fairly clear by itself
that debian-legal does NOT do any lawyers work (and
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008, Francesco Poli wrote:
OK, that said, if you wanted to modify a public key (in order to obtain
something else), what form would you use for making modifications?
I think the preferred form would be the one in which the GPG public key
is distributed by keyservers or some
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008, Francesco Poli wrote:
OK, that said, if you wanted to modify a public key (in order to obtain
something else), what form would you use for making modifications?
I think the preferred form would be the one in which the GPG public key
is distributed
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:16:28 +0200 Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 11424 March 1977, Francesco Poli wrote:
Important disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
Those are *totally* and absolutely unimportant and a waste to write.
Could people please stop always writing them, its fairly clear
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:15:16 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008, Francesco Poli wrote:
OK, that said, if you wanted to modify a public key (in order to obtain
something else), what form would you use for making modifications?
I think the preferred
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 19:34 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I *used* to think that those disclaimers are implicit in most cases.
But then, I was harshly accused of not making it clear enough that
I am neither a lawyer, nor a Debian developer, that I'm not providing
legal advice, and that I
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:16:28 +0200 Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 11424 March 1977, Francesco Poli wrote:
Important disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
Those are *totally* and absolutely unimportant and a waste to write.
Could people
El domingo, 22 de junio de 2008 a las 12:54:09 -0600, Wesley J. Landaker
escribía:
Actually, how are debian-keyring and debian-archive-keyring free-software,
anyway? Do I get source code for the all GPG keys they contain?
The /usr/share/doc/debian-keyring/copyright even says The keys in the
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:15:16 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I don't think that modifying has any reasonable meaning when talking
about cryptographic keys.
Why not?
Because it implies that you'd obtain something meaningful after
the modification. The intent of the
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
But then, I was harshly accused of not making it clear enough that
I am neither a lawyer, nor a Debian developer, that I'm not providing
legal advice, and that I don't speak on
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:31:02 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:15:16 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I don't think that modifying has any reasonable meaning when talking
about cryptographic keys.
Why not?
Because it implies that you'd
This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
There were some other people who seemed to more or less agree with
Anthony Towns. But he was certainly the loudest one complaining about
this.
I think it's quite likely I objected to you appearing to speak
authoritatively on behalf of the
On Sunday 22 June 2008 12:08:30 Adam Majer wrote:
AFAIK, we do not distribute things, we distribute *software*. Some
packages are just composed of data though, but other packages depend on
it. Some is just data that is very useful in the *Debian* project. This
includes the keyring.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:54:09 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
[...]
Actually, how are debian-keyring and debian-archive-keyring free-software,
anyway? Do I get source code for the all GPG keys they contain?
The most widely accepted definition of source code is the one found in
the GNU GPL: the
23 matches
Mail list logo
